get_trendsDay-over-day and week-over-week change for key Celestia metrics, computed from Orion's daily snapshots. Answers 'what changed since yesterday / last week?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It mentions the data source (Orion's daily snapshots) and the comparison periods (day-over-day, week-over-week), but it does not describe output details, potential edge cases, or any limitations. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, tightly written, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'what changed since yesterday / last week?' is a clear and memorable summary. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context to select and invoke it. It covers purpose, usage, and a key data source detail. It is not overly verbose, and nothing critical is missing for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description adds no parameter details because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it computes day-over-day and week-over-week changes for key Celestia metrics, which is a specific verb+resource. It also answers a concrete question ('what changed since yesterday / last week?'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_metric_history or get_network_state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context by framing the tool as answering 'what changed since yesterday / last week?', which tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of Celestia data: daily briefs, metric history, namespace details, network state, full reports, signals, top entities, trends, listing, and search. There is minimal overlap, and descriptions clarify the differences.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case (e.g., get_daily_brief, list_reports, search_reports). No mixing of conventions.
11 tools is well-scoped for a blockchain intelligence server, covering current state, historical data, lists, and search without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for querying Celestia network status, historical metrics, anomalies, top namespaces/validators, and report retrieval. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of intelligence gathering.